Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00365)

On Sun, 12 Jan 97, "Ann E. Bermingham"  wrote:

>----------
>> From: Eldon B. Tucker <eldon@theosophy.com>

>> Also, given the wide spectrum of views we have on the list, it's possible
>> to have all extremes represented. I don't expect people to generally
>> change their views to accord with the majority, but would expect people
>> to learn more respectful ways of self-expression, that result in an
>> exchange of ideas and positive interchanges, rather than a bringing up of
>> barriers and bitter fights. 
>
>There's the part that rubs me raw.  "I . . . would expect people to learn
>more respectful ways of self-expression,"  What if your expectations are
>never realized and certain individuals cling to their ways?  I personally
>don't expect anyone to be anything than what they are, even if they
>are flame-throwers on the Net.  Not one of us has the right to "expect"
>another person to change.  We can hope, but "expecting" is taking away
>that person's freedom to make their own decision about their own
>behavior.

Not "expecting" people to change and approving of evil are two very
different things.


>> Learning to be more careful about writing is a lesson we've all learned
>> as we participate in these discussions. Your confrontations of him may
>> help Tom accelerate the process whereby he acquires greater diplomacy,
>> subtly, and interpersonal insight in his writings. And perhaps if Richard
>> Ihle steps in, he'll get accelerated practice in wit and dry humor.
>
>Are we sending Tom to charm school here?  Grooming him in the
>arts of cyberspeak so that he'll post sweet as sugar?
>
>Perhaps he represents the dark side that we are forced to confront
>through his viewpoints and flame-bait.  

There is a significant moral difference between "flame-bait," which, as far
as I can tell, merely means "whatever the majority disagrees with," and
"flames," which are patently the antithesis of what is conducive to a
spirit of brotherhood.  Disagreements do not affect civil discussion.
Personal attacks do.  That you approve of personal attacks made by those
with whom you agree and disapprove of those who disagree with you means
that you sanction, and therefore deserve, to be personally attacked
yourself.  I'll let that be your karma, though, rather than incur the same
kind of weighty karma that bitter hypocrites like JRC have built up for
themselves.


>A mailing list without some
>controversy or conflict is going to be boring as Hades.  

The blindness to the distinction between an evil spirit and disagreement
that this statement reflects is astonishing.  Come to the Seattle Lodge of
the TS some time.  There, you will see all conceivable disagreements freely
expressed, particularly in the way those who have been members for almost
80 years go out of their way to encourage newcomers to say whatever they
think (with, of course, the important caveat that Alice Bailey's name never
be mentioned, since, after all, this _is_ the TS, and we have our limits)
with never a sign of any kind of personal insults of which you are so fond.
It makes this list look like a war zone.  And the last thing it is is
BORING.  THAT is my idea of brotherhood.